>>7321
>Am I a dumb retard or a cynical smartass?
the former.
it's not that the text is not saying much, it's that you're not getting anything out of it, which is quite different. philosophy, like literature, is about what you say just as much as how you say it. in order to work, complex thoughts have to be conveyed in a very specific way, and the more complex they are, the more they need to unfold through long sentences, paragraphs and several logically connected points. a poem is not its paraphrase and a book its not its summary, they're only equal to themselves. it's banal, but it looks like it has to be pointed out.
yes, sometimes intellectuals are just being pretentious, and French theory has produced a remarkable quantity of pompous epigones, but that's not often the case when we're talking about important thinkers. more often than not, if you get the impression that a text is gratuitously convoluted, probably it's not because the author is being pretentious, but because you're being shallow, you're not making any effort, you don't know enough about the subject or all these things at once. if you lack humility and add presumption on top of that, it easily leads to banalization and misunderstanding, as you have shown in your subsequent post (or in your tirades about communism, because I'm pretty sure you're the same wise guy).

p.s. none of what I've written is unnecessary or redundant, all was essential to make my point properly.